Allowed

Mangali Siddavva, and 3 Others v. A.P. Mohammad and Another

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023MACMA/3030/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court enhanced compensation in a motor accident appeal from Rs. 4,47,000 to Rs. 12,40,750. The court corrected the age of the deceased from 40 to 43 years, adjusted the multiplier, added future prospects, and granted specific amounts for funeral, consortium, and estate losses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 4,47,000 to Rs. 12,40,750 with interest at 7.5% per annum.

Mangali Siddavva, and 3 Others Vs A.P. Mohammad and… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t^3304l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 3030 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P. No. 902 of 2006 dated 2510212009 on the file of the Court of the Chairman-cum- Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mangali Siddawa, Wo Late Pochaiah, Household Rl/o. Naskal (V) Ramayampet (M) Medak District, at Present at Devanpally (V) Kamareddy (M) Nizamabad District.

¶10

Mangali Suresh, S/o Late Pochaiah, Student R/o. Naskal (V) Ramayampet (M) Medak District, at Present at Devanpally (V) Kamareddy (M) Nizamabad District.

¶11

Mangali Nagesh, S/o Late Pochaiah Student Ri,/o. Naskal (V) Ramayampet (M) Medak District, at Present at Devanpally (V) Kamareddy (M) Nizamabad District.

¶12

Mangali Venkawa, Wo Late Pochaiah Rl/o. Naskal (V) Ramayampet (M) Medak District, at Present at Devanpally (V) Kamareddy (M) Nizamabad District.

¶13

...APPELLANTS

¶14

AND

¶15

A.P. Mohammad, S/o. Maideen, Major, Owner of Lorry bearing No. KL-11R5389 R/o Ambalaparambil Choolam Vayal Kunnamongulam, Calicut, Kerala State

¶16

The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd.,, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Division Office at APSFC Building, 1st Floor, Subhashnagar, Opp. ZP Office, Nizamabad, (lnsurer of Lorry bearing No. KL-1 1R-5389 Vide lnsurance Police No.76'l 300/3'l /05/00834. Vide from 1 5-5-2005 to 14-05-2006.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CH JANARDHAN REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SMT. P.SATYA MANJULA

¶20

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED

¶21

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JTJSTTCENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO}

¶23

M.A.C.M.A^N o.3030^{oF 2011}

¶24

JUDGMENT:

¶25

This Motor^{Accidents Civil Miscella-neous Appeal is frled} under Secti on^{173 of the Motor VehiclesAct' 1988 by the} appellants/^{petitioners against theorder} and decree^dated by the^Chairman ' 25.O2.20Og^{inO.P'No'902of 2006 passed} Motor Accident^{ClaimsTribunal' VIII AdditionalDistrictJudge'} Nizamabad,^{(for short "the Tribunal")'}

¶26

For convenience,^{the partiesare hereinafter referred to as} they are^{arrayed before the Tribunal'}

¶27

3.BrieffactsofthecaseajethatpetitionerNo.listhewife, petitioner^{Nos.2 and 3 are sons' and petitioner No'4 is the} mother^{of the deceased' On 2g'O4'2006' u'hile MangaliPochaiah} (hereinafter^{referred to as'thedeceasedJ'along with his son' was} proceeding^{on amotorcyclebearing No'AP-O7H-7685 from} Hyderabad^{towards Ramayampet'ald when they came in front} of Noor^{Dhaba near a petrol bunk at Ramayampet' a lorry} bearing^{No.KL-11R-5389came from Nizamabad side in a rash} and negligent^{manner at high speed and dashedthe motorcycle'} Due to^{this, the deceased fell down and died on the spot'}

¶28

¶29

RRN,J MACMA No.3030 of 201l

¶30

According to the petitioners, the deceased was aged about 4O years, his monthly income is Rs. 10,000/_ per month by doing private medical practice and cultivation prior to the accident. Therefore, they filed the claim petition against respondent Nos. I & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle, respectively, claiming compensation of Rs.7,OO,OO0/_ under different heads.

¶31

Before the Tribunal, while the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. I remained ex parte, respondent No.2-[nsurance Compaly filed a counter denying the manner in which the accident took place, including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is also contended that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition

¶32

Considering the claim of the petitioners, counter hled b_v the Insuraace Company and on evaluation of oral and documentarSr evidence, the Tribunal allowed the O.p. in part, awarding a totat compensation of Rs.4,47,OOO/_ with interest @^{9%. per} annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment and with proportionate costs, to be deposited b_v respondent Nos. I & 2 jointly and severally, within one month from the date of order. Dissatisfied with the quantum o[

¶33

RRN,J MACMA No.3030^of2011

¶34

¶35

compensation^{awardedin the said order and decree by the} Tribunal,^{the appellants} /^{petitioners preferred the present appeal} seeking enhancement^{of the compensation'}

¶36

6 Heartl bo*r^{sides. Perused the record'}

¶37

Learned counsel^{for the petitionerswouldsubmit that the} Tribunal^{ought to have considered the age of the deceased as 43} years but the^{Tribunal has erroneously taken it as 40 years'} Hou'ever,Ex.A_1-FirstlnformationReport,Ex.A2InquestReport andEx.A3.PostMortemExaminationReportareshowingtheage of the deceased^{as 43 years'The Tribunalfailed to appreciatethe} fact that^{additional amolrnts have to be grantedunder the head} of future^{prospectsand theTribunalhas notgranted} compensation^{under conventional heads as per the judgments of} Apex Court^{and hence, the compensation has to be enhanced'}

¶38

Learned^{counselfor the petitioners furthercontended that} the Tribunal^{erredin not applyingthe multiplieras'14'aI1d the} Tribunal^{has taken the age of the deceased as about 4O years} and taken^{multiplier ul1' as per the SecondSchedule of Motor} Vehicle Act-^{He further contendedthat the deceased'sage shall} be considered^{as 43 years to assessthe multiplier'The Tribunal} did not^{grant any amount for future prospectsHe further} contended^{that futureprospects on the income of the deceased}

¶39

¶40

RRN,J MACMA N0.3030 of 2011

¶41

shall be added in assesslng the compensation under the head loss of dependency,. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.

¶42

9 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2_lnsurance Company had contended that the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶43

The involvement of the offending vehicle and the marrner of the accident is not under challenge. Thus, the hnrling of the Tribunal r.vith respect to the respondents, liability to ila-y compensation to the petitioners attajns finality.

¶44

I l. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the pelitioners, in order to prove the deceased,s income, filed Ex.AS certificate dated OZ .O2.19g2 issued by the pMp Association of India, A.p. branch. The certificate shows that the deceased attended refresher course training conducted under the auspices o[ Medak District Unit of pMp Associate of India. So, he was awarded the refresher course certificate in Allopathic System of Medicine' That certificate surely lends credence to the version of PWs.l and 3 that the deceased did private medical practice in the village. However, since the deceased was aged about 43

¶45

RRN,^J MACMA^{No 3030 of2011}

¶46

¶47

years as per^{Post Mortem Report- Ex'A3' this Court deems it} appropriate^{to consider the age of the deceased as 43 years as on} the date of^{death,this Court is considering the monthlyincome} of the^{deceaseda.s Rs'6,5O0/ -per month' To this' future} prospects of^{25o/o i.e.,Rs' 1,625/- to be addedas per the decision} irr National^{lrrsurcr'lce compangLtd. vs' Pronag sethil as the} deceased^{rvas aged 43 years' Since the dependantsare 4 in} number, a^{deduction of 114* of the deceased'sincometowards} personal^{expenses, which the deceasedmighthave spentfor} himself, is^{proper.The Tribunal has taken the multiplieras " 1 1"} instead of '14'.^{The appropriatemultiplier as per the decisionof}

¶48

Sarla Venna^{Vs' Dethi TransportCorporation2is "14" The}

¶49

assessment^{of the loss of dependency would thusbe as follou's:}

¶50

S1.No. I 2	DescriPtion ased e dec e f o ttr o C e m n I FutureProsPects	Calculation rmonth Rs.6,5OO Rs.r,62sl-@2 ^5o/o onmonthl income
3 4	Monthty^[ncome+ ts ros future Personal^exPenses ^rl4	Rs.6,5OO^{+ r,625 =8,125} Rs.8,12sl- (Rs.8,125^x1At^=z,ozrl-
5 6	Annual^income after^deduction deceased personal e SCS of of tossof dePendencY	9 o 6 3 1 2 o 2 I 5 8 Rs 2 I x 3 o9 6 Rs Rs.73,I25 Rs.1O,23,75Ot- Rs.73 ^{I25x 14} (
	Multi lier	t4

¶51

'^{(zorz) ro scc eso}

¶52

'(zoog)^{o scc lzr.}

¶53

¶54

RRN,] MACMA No.3030 of 20l1

¶55

Learned Counsel for the petitioners had contended that the Tribunal had granted funeral expenses and loss of consortium amounts very meagre. Therefore, considering the above evidence, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation from Rs.2,000/to Rs.16,500/- (1S,OOO+1O%) towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,0OO/- to Rs.2O,OOO/_ towards loss of consortium as per pranag Sethi (supra) and the Tribunal did not grant any amount under the head of .loss of estate,and this Court is inclined to gran t an amount of Rs.l6,5OO/_ (l5,O0O+ 1O%) towards loss of estate. petitioner No.l the deceased's rvife, rs entitled Rs.44,OOO/- tor.vards the loss o[ spousal consortium. petitioner No.2 and 3 are being the minor sons of the deceased are enritled Rs.SO,OOO/_@O,OOO x 2) towards the loss of parental consortium and petitioner No.4, being the mother of the deceased, is entitled Rs.40,OOO/towards filial consortium as per the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Magma Insurclnce Compang Ltd. Vs. Nqnu Ram @ Chuhnt Ramr. However, rhe petitioners/appellants shall pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation.

¶56

32018 Law Suit (SCl 9O4

¶57

RRN,I MACMA No-3030 of 201I

¶58

¶59

I I

¶60

In all, the^{petitioners/appellantsareentitledto} Rs.12,40,75O/-^{towards compensation (Rs'1O,23'750 + 16'500} + 20,O00⁺ 16,500^{+ 44,OOO + 8!,0Q-O+ 4O,O00)-Thoughthe} ctaimed amount^{is ns.z,OO,OOO7--invo-f<in[:tfre p-ncipleof just} compensation^{and in view of the law laid down by the Hontrle} Supreme Court^{in Rajeshus' RaibirSinghaand in a catenaof} decisions,thisCourtisempoweredtograntcompensation beyond the^{claimed amount'However,the petitioners/ appellants} shall pay the^{deficit Court fee on the enhalced compensation'}

¶61

L4. Accordingly,^{the M.A.C'M'Ais allowedby enhancingthc} compcnsationaw.ardedbytheTribunalfromRs.4,4T'ooo/-to Rs.12,4O,75O/-^{(RupeesTwelve LakhsForty ThousandSevcn} Hundred and^{Fiffy only)'Thoughthe Court belou'hxed interest} @^{9%, this Court is inclined to grant @ 7 '5%" p'a' on enhanced} [email protected]/oper annurn^{from the date of petition till the date of realisationThe} respondents^{are directedto deposit the compensation amount} along with^{interest and costs,after deducting the amount' if any} already deposited,^{within (02) months from the date of receiptof} a copy of^{this judgment' The apportionment shall be done alnong} the pctitioners^{as per the ratio and apportionment determinedby}

¶62

4 MANU/5C/0480/2013

¶63

RRN,] MACMA No_3030 of 2011

¶64

l_l-__-

¶65

the Tribunal. The petitioners are directed to deposit the dehcit Court Fee before the Tribunal on the enhanced compensation within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this shall be.no oraer as ts-costs,_

¶66

Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if arry, shall stand

¶67

closed.

¶68

SD/.P.GOWRI SHAN ASSISTANT REGIS

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1' The chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-V* Additionar District

¶73

^^{{rdg9 at Nizamabad (with records)}

¶74

One CC to Sri Ch Janardhan Redjy, Advocate [OpUC]

¶75

9n"^{CC to Smt.p.SatyaManjuta, Aaro.ut.} [OdUCf 4. Two CD CopiesTwo CD Copies

¶76

Two CD CopiesTwo CD Copies BGV/plp

$lr

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510912023

JUDGMENT

MAGMA.No.3030 of 2011

¶82

HE 8TA rC:
(
oo 0 2 ttB 204 oz
* k
lj €5sr',Tr:' i;.,c

¶83

ALLOWNG THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS.

¶84

\1 ,,iI*

¶85

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶86

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE

¶87

PRESENT

¶88

THE HONOURABLE SRl JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶89

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 3030 OF 2011

¶90

Between:

¶91

Mangali Siddawa, Wo Late Pochaiah, Household^{R/o. Naskal(V)} Ramayampet (M) Medak District, at Present^{at Devanpally (V) Kamareddy (M)} Nizamabad District.

¶92

Mangali Suresh, S/o Late Pochaiah,^{StudentRl/o. Naskal(V) Ramayampet} (M) Medak District, at Present at Devanpally^(V) Kamareddy^{(M) Nizamabad} District.

¶93

Mangali Nagesh, S/o Late^{Pochaiah StudentR/o. Naskal (V) Ramayampet} (M) Medak District, at Present at Devanpally^{(V) Kamareddy(M) Nizamabad} District.

¶94

Mangali Venkawa, Wo Late^{PochaiahR/o.Naskal(V) Ramayampet (M)} Medak District, at Present at^{Devanpally(V) Kamareddy(M) Nizamabad} District

¶95

...APPELLANT'

¶96

AND

¶97

A.P. Mohammad, S/o.^{Maideen, Major,Owner of LorrybearingNo. KL-1'lR-} 5389 Fl/o Ambalaparambil Choolam^{Vayal Kunnamongulam, Calicut,Kerala} State

¶98

The New lndia Assurance Co.^{Ltd.,, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Division} Office at APSFC Building,^{1st Floor, Subhashnagar,Opp. ZP Office'} Nizamabad, (lnsurer of Lorry^{bearing No. KL-11R-5389Vide lnsurancePolice} No.761 300/31/05/00834.^{Videfrom1 5-5-2005 to 14-05-2006.}

¶99

...RESPONDENTS

¶100

Appeal under Section^{173 of MotorVehicles Act against the} 9td":?"9 1:"i:' inM.V.o.P'No.902of2006daled25t02l2o09onthefileoftheCourtotthe Chairman-cum-^{Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad'} ORDER:^{This appeal coming on for hearingald uPon perusing the grounds"of} ,'pp-""i-if." lrOd;.nt^{anO Oe"cre" oi t''u Uo*Lr Court and the material paper in the} case and^{upon hearing tn" Ld'nlnt" of Sri Ch' Janardhan Reddy' Advocatefor the} anDeilants and^{of Smt. p ;il'il;;irtr,} no"o".t"^{for Respondent No.2 andNone} Appeared^{for the ResPondent No 1 '}

¶101

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶102

That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,47,0004 to Rs.12,40,7504 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Only);

¶103

2: Tiat the enhanced amount be and hereby shall earry interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

¶104

That the respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest and costs of the deducting the amount, if any, already deposited within (02) months from the date of receipt of a mpy of this judgment;

¶105

4' That the apportionment shall be done among the petitioners as per the ratio and the apportionment determined by the Tribunal;

¶106

That the petitioners be and hereby are directed to deposit the deficit court fee before the Tribunal on the enhanced compensation within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

¶107